Take the Money and Run: Detainment Incident to a Search Warrant in Bailey v. United States

This commentary previews an upcoming Supreme Court case, Bailey v. United States, in which the Court will examine the scope of permissible non-arrest seizures in the context of a detainment incident to a search warrant. The case offers the Court an opportunity to clarify its holding in Michigan v. Summers--that occupants of premises being searched pursuant to a valid warrant may be detained during the search--by determining whether such a detainment is permissible when the occupants have left the premises

Clear Statement Rules and Executive War Powers

This article is based on a presentation at the Annual Federalist Society National Student Symposium on Law and Public Policy that explored the theme of separation of powers in American constitutionalism. The scope of the President’s independent war powers is notoriously unclear, and courts are understandably reluctant to issue constitutional rulings that might deprive the federal government as a whole of the flexibility needed to respond to crises. As a result, courts often look for signs that Congress has either supported or opposed the President’s actions and rest their decisions on statutory grounds. There have been both liberal and conservative claims about the potential role of a clear statement requirement in the context of executive war powers. The author concludes that what this analysis ultimately suggests is that deciding issues of executive war powers requires contextual and pragmatic judgment rather than resort to abstract classifications, whether they are liberal or conservative in character, something that Justice Jackson recognized in his justifiably famous \u27Youngstown\u27 concurrence

Secrecy, Guilt by Association, and the Terrorist Profile

In this essay, I will argue that the use of secret procedures and guilt by association in immigration trials is not only unconstitutional but counterproductive. I will begin with a case study, then discuss in turn the practices of secret evidence and guilt by association, and finally conclude with a consideration of how these two tactics perpetuate invidious stereotypes about Arabs and Muslims

Developing a National Model for Pre-Trial Risk Assessment

Every day in America, judges have to answer a critical question again and again: What are the chances that a recently arrested defendant, if released before trial, will commit a new crime, a new violent crime, or fail to appear for court?This may be the single most important decision made in the criminal justice system because it impacts everything that follows: whether or not a defendant is sentenced to jail or prison, how long he is incarcerated, and most importantly, how likely he is to commit violence or other crimes in the future. Yet, most of these decisions are made in a subjective manner, without the benefit of data-driven, objective assessments of the risks individual defendants pose to public safety

FY 1996 Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act Compliance Monitoring Report

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (JJDPA) mandates removal of status offenders and nonoffenders from secure detention and correctional facilities, sight and sound separation of juveniles and adults, and removal of juveniles from adult jails and lockups. In Alaska, 4 instances of a status offender held in secure detention were recorded in FY 1996, compared with 485 violations in the baseline year of CY 1976. 3 separation violations were recorded in FY 1997, representing a 99.6% reduction from the CY 1976 baseline of 824 violations. 44 jail removal violations were projected, representing an 95% reduction from the CY 1980 baseline.Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Family and Youth ServicesA. General Information / B. Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / C. De Minimis Request / D. Progress Made in Achieving Removal of Status Offenders and Nonoffenders from Secure Detention and Correctional Facilities / E. Separation of Juveniles and Adults / F. Removal of Juveniles from Adult Jails and Lockups / G. De Minimis Request: Substantive / APPENDICES / I. Method of Analysis / II. FY96 Violations by Offense Type and Location / III. Common Offense Acronym

Watching the Watchers: Enemy Combatants in the Internment Shadow

In the past, the government has avoided accountability for the atrocity of allowing the internment of Japanese Americans during WWII. Kang examines whether the federal judiciary is again shying away from its responsibilities of holding the other branches accountable for their actions as they conduct their war on terror